Assalaam alaikum warahmatullah wabarakathu wamaghfiratuhu,

I'd like to wish you all a blessed Eid, May Allah accept from us our deeds. May we live to see another Ramadan. Inshallah.

Adam Deen

Responding to Usama Hasan's Muslim apes.

PLEASE VISIT ADAM DEEN'S new site
Click here

Edited 1/12/10

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary

In this piece, the otherwise well respected Usama Hasan, founder of the City Circle, argues that Muslims should move on from their “children's madrasa-level understanding” of creation and wholeheartedly adopt the evolutionary theory that man evolved from apes. He believes that there is no conflict between the Quran’s version of creation and this controversial and oft-contested part of the evolutionary theory. He also says that an obstacle in making this theory palatable to the Muslim community, is the publications produced by 'fundamentalist' Muslims like Harun Yahya. Fundamentalist? Why the use of this loaded term? At most, the likes of Usama Hassan can only claim that Harun Yahya's engagement with the scientific discourse was simplistic and unsuccessful at forwarding a case against the theory of evolution. He is hardly worthy of the 'extremist' label so easily metted out these days.

As a Muslim, I don’t see any conflict between science and my Islamic faith, and in this I agree with Usama's objective of reconciling the two. In particular, evolution in its general sense is not problematic for Muslims to accept. However, the contention is that of macro evolution, that species evolved from altogether different species, and that man evolved from Apes. With respect to the somewhat pompous tone of the piece, I felt it was unfounded. Dawkins is hardly the most respected scientist even though he may be amongst the most famous. Not all scientists accept that there is undeniable conclusive evidence for the evolutionary theory.

David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History said

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time".
(Raup D.M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)

Further muddying the waters on this issue is Richard Dawkins’ very own evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, who writes:

" However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation".
Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, 90:830–1, 25 June 1981

There is also dispute internally amongst scientists about the theory itself. The late Professor S J Gould, from Harvard University, argued that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. He proposed Punctuated equilibrium, morphological stability and rare bursts of evolutionary change as an alternative.

According to John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler in the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. If man did evolve from apes, J.D. Barrow and F.J Tipler suggest that there would have to be ten steps in this evolution of Homosapiens. However, the process would take so long that before the process could even come close to what we look like now, the Sun would have disintegrated. Also, they calculated the odds of assembling a single gene are between and 4-180 to 4-360. The implications of this are that there simply has not been sufficient time since the formation of the earth to try a number of nucleotide base combinations that can even remotely compare to these numbers.

Given these few examples, of which many more exist, to present the case for macro evolution as a closed case is rather disingenuous on the part of Usama Hasan.

A consistent quranic evolutionary model has to incorporate the information Allah provides us, namely that Adam was made from clay and that Allah breathed into him his spirit to make him into man. One could argue that when Allah mentions these facts, he is condensing the whole evolutionary process within the verse, i.e. mentioning the start of the evolutionary stage and the end. This then leaves open the possibility of accepting the verses mentioned about creation and the contention that man evolved from apes, as both being true. For example, the clay mentioned could be the substance that brought about simple organisms, then after many years of random mutation and natural selection, apes evolved and further evolution produced homo sapiens. Then, at this evolutionary stage, Allah breathed his spirit creating the final article Adam, the first man as we know it.
However when we explore further evidences closely, we find that there are problems with this model. If we look at the verses

15:28 And lo! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels: "Behold, I am about to create mortal man out of sounding clay, out of dark slime transmuted.

15:29 and when I have formed him fully and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down before him in prostration!

I find it hard to conceive that when Allah says “Behold, I am about to create mortal man out of sounding clay...” to the Angels and Iblis, that at this moment, the entire evolutionary process started for man. The verse itself suggests that the events are happening sequentially.
A further indication is given by Allah about the process in which he created man, in the verse

55:14 He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery.

Allah provides an analogy of pottery so that we can grasp the idea in question. To inject now the theory of evolution for mankind would seem rather contrived.
Usama criticises the idea that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into him to make him a living human. Problem he is that this is not some baseless view; it is described in the Quran. Either Usama rejects the inerrancy of the Quran or he rejects the idea that man evolved from common ancestry or he has the bigger task of finding good reasons to interpret the texts concerning creation in allegorical form. Its not enough to just sideline those verses. He has to put forward an argument to support the verses pertaining to creation.

I’m all for Muslims engaging with scientific discourse and developing arguments to reconcile alleged scientific theory with Quranic verses, but the arguments need to hold their ground not only with the editor of the Guardian, but also within the Muslim community whose traditions Usama is meant to be drawing on. It is evidence of either an uninformed individual, or a defeated mentality, that Usama chose to focus on the opinion of polemical scientist Dawkins, rather than address the real wealth of theist and non-theist scientists, from top institutions, who find fault with macro-evolution. To lambast the Muslim community with anything else is to add to the confusion, not clarify it.

Questions on Muslim apologetics Q4 : Is it more logical to say there is one God?

Questioner wrote...

Is it more logical to say there is one God?

Adam Deen wrote...

I think so; one way to approach this is by employing Occam’s razor. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.[i] Basically, it makes more sense not to postulate causes beyond necessity, if one cause is sufficient to explain the given data then that one cause is enough.
The cosmological argument states that the universe must be the result of a "first cause" and that that first cause must be God and the teleological argues that the design and order of the universe is due to a supernatural designer i.e. God. The existence of one God explains all the data for these arguments, it would be unnecessary to postulate more Gods to explain the data when one God is enough.
So in conclusion, it is more logical that there is one god than many.

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

The mention of Mohammed in the Bible

draft version 1.0

One important component of the cumulative argument for the warrant of Islamic belief, is the authority of Mohammed as a prophet within the biblical scriptures. Many non Muslims, more so Christians would be perplexed by the idea that Muslims would be referring to biblical scriptures to demonstrate the prophethood of Mohammed. However this contention can simply be overcome by the understanding of Islam not as a new religion as such, but more so as a continuation of prophethood and the finality of messangerhood. From the time of Adam to Mohammed, it is stated that there have been anything from one hundred to twenty thousand prophets sent to mankind. Each brought new revelation or confirmed the previous message. If we understand Islam in this sense and that Mohammed (saw ) was the final and last messenger, the most important messenger, then it would be quite plausible to inquire as to whether Moses, Jesus or another prophet from the lineage of prophets would mention such a great prophet.


The other explanation of such an enterprise is that God, ‘Allah’, in the Quran mentions that Mohammed is included within the biblical scriptures.


“Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures, in the Torah and the Gospel” (Quran 7:157; Trans.: Yusuf Ali)


To present a summary of the argument that the Prophet of Islam is mentioned within the biblical scriptures, I shall explore two main arguments comprised of two verses each, with supportive arguments, containing other verses to add further contextualisation.


Christian apologists overtly dismiss the claim that the authority of Mohammed is mentioned within the Bible. They claim that the mention of Islam’s prophet is nowhere to be found. Their defence is that Muslims are misquoting the biblical references and namely, taking them out of their ‘proper’context.


Muslim apologists claim that Moses prophesised the coming of a new prophet and within this prophecy a clue is given to recognise this new prophet.


"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." Deuteronomy 18:18

Muslim Apologists claim that this particular verse is referring to Mohammed, the prophet of Islam. Their first argument is based upon to the mention that a prophet will rise amongst their brethren. The second argument is that Mohammed is more similar to Moses, than Jesus is similar to Moses, and lastly the verse containing the particular and rather descriptive sentence “put words in his mouth”.


1) “A Prophet will rise amongst their brethren…”


It is argued that the brethren of the Israelites, as mentioned in the verse, are the Ishmaelites. The late Ahmed Deedat a prominent South African biblical scholar explains that Abraham had two sons from two different wives, Sarah the mother of Isaac who is the father of the Jews and Hagar the mother of Ishmael the father of the Arabs.[1]

As it is widely accepted that Mohammed come from Arabia, the lineage of the Ishmaelites i.e Arabs, Mohammed therefore falls within this description. The Bible also confirms this historical relationship. [2]


2) Mohammed is more similar to Moses than Jesus is similar to Moses; therefore the prophecy is foretelling the coming of Mohammed rather than Jesus.


Ahmed Deedat drew analogies between Moses and Mohammed. Firstly, Moses had a father and mother, whereas Jesus had a miraculous birth. Moses married as did Mohammed, Jesus did not. Both Moses and Mohammed were accepted by their people in their very lifetime, where as Jesus was rejected by his people during his life. Moses and Muhammad were prophets as well as kings. Dedat explains that Moses not only was a spiritual leader but also a material leader too. Moses had the power over his people to punish. An example is given of the Israelite who was found picking up firewood on Sabbath Day, and Moses had him stoned to death. (Numbers- 15:13). Mohammed is also known to not to be just a spiritual leader but also material leader. Jesus on the other hand was known to have said that his kingdom was not of this world.

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”(John 18:36).

Moses and Muhammad brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Moses not only gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, but a very comprehensive ceremonial law for the guidance of his people. Jesus however, as Deedat demonstrates with the following verse, does not:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”.(Mathew 5:17-18).

Hence Jesus did not come with a new law. Mohammed on the other hand, as it is well known brought a new set of laws to the Arabs. Both Moses and Muhammad died natural deaths, but according to Deedat and orthodox Christian belief, Jesus’ body is in Heaven. [3].

Deedat also focuses on Jesus’ unique characteristics, such as him being known as the Son of God and of his alleged resurrection where he died for the sins of the world and also that he was in Hell for three days. By this Deedat suggests that Moses and Jesus are incomparable.


Dr Jamal Badawi a well-known author, activist adds further similarities. Badawi likens Moses to Mohammed as Moses migrated as did Mohammed during his time as a prophet. Moses left Egypt for Median and Mohammed left Makkah for Yathrib which is now called Medina. The other commonalty between Moses and Mohammed is that both of their encounters with enemies ended with a military and moral victory, where as Jesus only ended with a moral victory. Lastly, the teachings revealed to Moses were available in a written form in their lifetimes, whereas the Gospel was written down many years after Jesus. [4]


3) “Put words in his mouth…”

Proceeding with arguments for verse Deuteronomy 18:18, the specific wording of the verse “put words in his mouth” is a vivid description of the type of revelation received by Muhammad. Angel Gabriel used to come and dictate to him specific portions of the Qur’an which were then repeated by Prophet Muhammad exactly as he had heard them. Muhammad’s own thinking or authorship were not involved in any way in what he uttered.[5] As the Qur’an describes:

“He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire, it is no less than a revelation sent down to him.” (The Qur’an 53:3-4)



The second verse that has caused much controversy within the Muslim-Christian dialogue, is the verses pertaining to the Gospel of John speaking of the coming of a “Paraclete.” The “Paraclete”, in its English form comes from the Greek word “Parakletos”, which means “one who consoles, one who intercedes on our behalf, a comforter or an advocate”.[6] 'Paraclete' appears in the New Testament in the Gospel of John (14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 20:22) where it may be translated in English as "Counselor", "Helper", or "Comforter". The Christian apologists say that this description is for the Holy Spirit.[7]

There are two distinct arguments as to why the mention of ‘Paraclete’ is in fact a reference to Mohammed. First the origin and etymology of the word ‘Paraclete’ and second the context the ‘Paraclete’ is mentioned.


Muslim apologists claim that the ‘Paraclete’ is actually Prophet Mohammed. They argue that the ‘Parakletos’ is the corrupted form of a very similar word ‘Periklitos”, which means ‘admired one’ or ‘glorified one’, which is the identical meaning of the name ‘Ahmad’ in Arabic, which was itself the other name of Mohammed. [8]

With respect to the contextual arguments, Deedat argues that this ‘Paraclete’ could not be the ‘Holy Spirit’, as it must be a ‘person’ indicated by the grammatical expression within the Johannone verses. The verses pertaining to the ‘Paraclete’ for example John 16:13 use the masculine pronouns “He and “himself”. Deedat points out that if the ‘Paraclete’ were referring to the Holy Spirit, then why would the verses use masculine pronouns, when in fact they should be using the pronoun ‘it’ for a neutral gender. [9] This is based on the assumption that the Holy Spirit is neutral in gender of course.

Continuing the discussion about the grammatical expression used, Dr Maurice Bucaille also suggests that these verses can not be attributed to the Holy Spirit but rather “to a being with hearing and speech organs”. [10] He demonstrates this by examining the Greek verb ‘to hear’, ‘akouo’, meaning to perceive sound. The Greek verb ‘to speak’, ‘laleo’, which is the general meaning of ‘to emit sound’ specifically ‘to speak’. The verb occurs very frequently in the Greek text with respect to Jesus’ preaching, and with this in mind, he suggests the ‘Paraclete’ will be hearing and speaking in a physical capacity. Bucaille adds that “It has a very obvious material character moreover, which comes from the idea of the emission of sounds conveyed by the Greek word that defines it.”[11]


Now let us look at the contextual arguments. In John 16 6-17 , Deedat asks us to home unto two main points. Firstly, Jesus says that if he does not go the ‘Paraclete’ cannot come. The second is that Jesus says that he has many things to say but it could not be told then and that the ‘Spirit of Truth’ would guide them to all truths.


“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.” (16 6-17)


Argument thus follows:


1. Jesus has to leave for the ‘paralcete’ to appear

2. If ‘Paraclete’ appears he will guide to all truths

3. Jesus did leave

4. Therefore the ‘Paraclete’ appeared to guide to all truths.


Deedat explains that this is a rather strange conditional clause by Jesus for the Holy Spirit to arrive, as the ‘Holy Spirit’ was already around. He quotes “And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost” (Luke 1:15), “and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him (Jesus), and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). According to Deedat this conditional arrival could not be for the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit was always here among mankind. Also Deedat, quite boldly challenges Christians that if the ‘Spirit of Truth’ is the ‘Holy Spirit’ then what new truths did the Holy Spirit provide, that Jesus didn’t provide? [12] The answer being nothing. He then concludes that these references can not be the Holy Spirit, but rather refer to Mohammed, as he brought new religious knowledge to the world.



[1] What the Bible says about Mohammed (Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa 1976)

[2] Genesis 24:67, 16:15 - 16

[3]WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT MUHAMMAD (Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa 1976)

[4] Mohammed in the Bible ( Dr Jamal Badawi)

[5] ibid

[6] http://cf.blueletterbible.org

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraclete

[8]Jesus' Prophecy (Paraclete) ( Dr Jamal Badawi) http://www.islamicity.com

[9]Muhammad, the natural successor to Christ (Ahmed Deedat)

[10] The Bible, The Quran and Science (Dr Maurice Bucaille)

[11] ibid

[12] Mohammed in the Bible (Ahmed Deedat)

حجة الكلام الكونية

من الحجج القوية على وجود الله الحجة الكونية المسماة بـ "حجة الكلام" . هذه الحجة لها تراث إسلامي غني يعود إلى الفلاسفة المسلمين في العصور الوسطى أمثال الغزالي رحمه الله، ومن هنا جاء اسمها العربي "الكلام" والذي يتم تعميمه اليوم من قبل المسيحيي الإنجيليي د. كريغ (W. L. Craig).

ما يميز حجة الكلام عن الحجج الكونية الأخرى، هو أنها تفترض أن هناك شيئاً موجوداً ومن ثم انطلاقاً من وجوده تثبت وجود مسبب أول متجاوز.

وقد تم مؤخراً إحياء شعبية هذه الحجة من قبل فلاسفة المسيحية المعاصرين. وثمة ملاحظة أخرى نذكرها هنا، وهي أن دوكينز في كتابه الشهير "وهم الإله" يتجنب ذكر هذا النسخة تحديداً من الحجج الكونية ويركز بدلاً من ذلك على صيغ أخرى بدائية إلى حد ما. وربما يعود ذلك إلى حقيقة أن حجتة المضادة الرئيسية التي مفادها "أنهم ( أي أصحاب الحجج الكونية) يفترضون افتراضاً غير مبرر إطلاقاً بأن الله هو نفسه في مأمن من التراجع اللانهائي( infinite regress)" لا ترقى إلى كونها حجة مبطلة لحجة الكلام الكونية.

صيغة حجة الكلام بسيطة وهي كالتالي:

1. كل ما توجد بداية لوجوده، يوجد مسبب لوجوده.

2. الكون بدأ في الوجود.

3. بالتالي، فإن الكون له مسبب.

الفرضية الفلسفية (1) هي مبدأ أول في الميتافيزيقا (فرع الفلسفة الذي يبحث في ما هو موجود) والذي وصفه أرسطو على أنه علم الوجود. والتسليم بصحة هذه الفرضية يبدو بالتأكيد أكثر عقلانيةً من إنكارها.. فكرة أن الأمور يمكن أن تقفز الى حيز الوجود دون مسبب تبدو غير مبررة عقلانيا.ً فالوجود يأتي من الوجود، ومن العدم، لا يأتي سوى العدم. وكما قال أرسطو مرة : لا ينبغي العمل على إثبات مقترح باستخدام مقترح آخر أقل وضوحاً.
لقد نفى الملحدون تقليدياً الفرضية (2) مسلمين في المقابل بأبدية الكون. ولكن هناك أسباب وجيهة، فلسفية وعلمية على حد سواء، تدعو إلى الاعتقاد بأن الكون له بداية محددة. فلسفياً، تبدو فكرة الماضي اللانهائي سخيفة. حيث إنه إن لم يوجد بداية محددة للكون، فإن عدد الأحداث الماضية في تاريخه سيكون لانهائياً، مما يثير إشكالات لا يمكن لمؤيدي أبدية الكون تجاوزها. كيف يمكن للحدث الحاضر أن يتحقق بوجود عدد لا نهائي من الأحداث السابقة له والتي يجب أن تنقضي أولاً ؟ إن أي حدث يتم اختياره بشكل عشوائي ستسبقه سلسلة لانهائية من الأحداث الماضية. ومن المفارقات أنه في هذا السيناريو المعطى فإن الحاضر لن يتحقق أبداً. وتعرف هذه المشكلة بـ "مشكلة عبور اللانهاية" ( traversing the infinite ).

إضافة إلى ذلك، فقد بعثت سلسلة مميزة من الاكتشافات في مجال علم الفلك والفيزياء الفلكية على مدى القرن الماضي الحياة مجدداً في حجة الكلام. لدينا اليوم أدلة قوية على أن الكون ليس لانهائياً في ماضيه، بل كانت له بداية حاسمة قبل 13.7 بليون سنة تقريباً في حدث خارق معروف باسم ‘الانفجار العظيم‘.

حتى عام1920، اعتبر الكون أبدياً ومستقراً في بنيته. وفي عام 1929 وجد الفلكي الأمريكي إدوين هابل (Edwin Hubble) أن الضوء المنبعث من المجرات البعيدة أشد احمراراً من ذلك المنبعث من المجرات الأقرب إلينا. والسبب في ذلك-يوضح هابل- أن هذه المجرات البعيدة تتحرك مبتعدة عنا. ومن ثم، فإن الكون آخذ في التوسع.

من المعروف منذ زمن طويل أن موجات الضوء المنبعثة عن مصدر آخذ في الانحسار تمتد وبالتالي تتحول باتجاه النهاية الحمراء من الطيف. وقد وجد هابل أن الانزياح الأحمر يزداد كلما كانت المجرة أبعد عنا وأن هذا الأثر يحدث في كل الاتجاهات. أبسط تفسير لهذه الحقائق هو أن المجرات تتباعد عنا في شكل من التوسع الفضائي. ومعنى هذا التوسع أن بنية الكون كانت مضغوطة أكثر في الماضي وأن هناك نقطة رياضية محددة بدأ عندها الكون وأخذ في التوسع انطلاقاً منها منذ ذلك الحين. وهذا يعني أن الكون بدأ بانفجار واسع في وضعية شديدة الكثافة، وهو الحدث المعروف باسم الانفجار العظيم.

يقول الفيزيائي البريطاني دافيس (PCW Davies):

"إذا استقرأنا هذا التوقع إلى مداه الأقصى، سيؤدي بنا ذلك إلى استنتاج وجود نقطة معينة في الماضي تتقلص عندها جميع المسافات في الكون إلى الصفر. ومن ثم وجود متفردة كونية تشكل حداً زمنياً أقصى للكون. ولن يمكننا الاستمرار في المنطق المادي أو حتى مفهوم المكان والزمان بوجود حد كهذا. لهذا السبب، فإن معظم علماء الكون ينظرون للمتفردة البدائية على أنها بداية الكون، وتبعاً لهذه النظرة يمثل الانفجار الكبير حدث الخلق ليس فقط لكامل المادة والطاقة في الكون، بل حتى للمكان والزمان نفسهما".

P. C. W. Davies, "Space & time Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78?79.

الاكتشاف الثاني الذي عزز بشدة حقيقة أن الكون بدأ في الوجود هو نظرية "الإشعاعات الخلفية الكونية" CMB ‘cosmic microwave background’. حصل هذا الاكتشاف عام 1967، عندما اكتشف مهندسَي الراديو أرنوس بينزياس وروبرت ويلسون مصادفة أشعة قادمة من الفضاء تم تصنيفها على أنها أثر متبق من آثار الانفجار العظيم. إذا كان الكون في وقت ما في وضعية كثافة عالية جداً، فلا بد أنه قد كان حاراً جداً حيث أن حرارة المادة ترتفع بارتفاع ضغطها. وبما أن المواد الساخنة تبعث إشعاعاً حرارياً فيمكننا أن نتوقع أن الحرارة المتبقية من ولادة الكون لازالت تسبح في الكون حتى اليوم على هيئة وهج خافت من الإشعاع. وهذا ما أكده اكتشاف "الإشعاعات الخلفية الكونية".

بما أن حجة الكلام الكونية سليمة منطقياً، فإن صحة الفرضيات تقتضي صحة الاستنتاج بالضرورة. وبالتالي إذا صح أن الكون بدأ في الوجود إضافة إلى ما تأكده معرفتنا الميتافيزيقية من أن الأمور لا تقفز ببساطة الى حيز الوجود من اللا شيء، ينتج عن ذلك أن الكون له مسبب خارج المكان والزمان.

Miraculous Recovery - A philosophical perspective on miracles

Apologies, this article has now moved to the new site. Click here to read

Mother dressed in 'burka' denied French citizenship - Saga Continues with "House Muslims"

A Muslim member of the French Government has attacked the head-to-toe Islamic dress as a prison, applauding a court decision to deny citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wore it.

“The burka is a prison, a strait-jacket,” Fadela Amara, the Minister for Urban Affairs and a longstanding women's rights campaigner, said yesterday. “It is not religious. It is the insignia of a totalitarian political project for sexual inequality.”

The court decision denying Faiza Mabchour, 32, French citizenship has drawn approval from both Left and Right, highlighting a rejection of Muslim customs that conflict with the values of the secular French republic.

“The affair of the burka”, as it has become known, began in late June when the Council of State, the highest civil court, endorsed a decision to refuse nationality to Ms Mabchour because her practices conflicted with French society and especially sexual equality.

Ms Mabchour, a French-speaker who lives in a southern Paris suburb, came to France in 2000 after marrying a Frenchman of North African background. They have three children, all French. At her husband's request she converted to Salafism, a hardline school of Islam that is strong in Saudi Arabia. She began wearing the dress that the French media call the burka, but which is strictly a niqab.

In the first ruling of its type Ms Mabchour's application was rejected because she had failed to integrate. Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave, the state commissioner who decided the appeal, noted that Ms Mabchour had appeared for interviews “clothed from head to toe in the clothing of women from the Arabian peninsula, with a veil covering her hair, forehead and chin and a piece of cloth over her face. Her eyes could only be seen through a small slit.

“She lives virtually as a recluse, disconnected from French society. She has no concept of laïcité [the principle of the secular State] nor the right to vote. She lives in total subservience to the men in her family,” she added.

The decision was the latest episode in France's struggle to balance the laïcité principle with the religious practices of Europe's largest Muslim community.

It follows a popular 2005 ban on religious head-covering in state schools and rising concern over demands from some Muslims for sexual segregation in public swimming pools and sports grounds.

Ms Amara, who is one of the most outspoken members of the Government, said that she deplored all head-cover by Muslim women. “It's just a question of centimetres of fabric,” she said, describing both as symbols of oppression. The headscarf ban has proved highly popular, at least with non-Muslims and teachers.

Last May a judge in Lille caused an uproar when she annulled the marriage of a couple because the bride had falsely told her Muslim husband that she was a virgin. On orders from Mr Sarkozy, the State has appealed against that decision. The “burka case” is seen by some of Mr Sarkozy's opponents as a reflection of his hardline policies over immigration as Interior Minister and then President.

Leaders of France's Muslim establishment played down the ruling and said they feared that it would stir anti-Muslim feeling. “The refusal of nationality is due to lack of integration,” said Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council of Muslims.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4347204.ece?Submitted=true

There are lessons to be learnt from the late Malcom X.

This whole case is telling of a new form of racism “Islamophobia”, which is becoming endemic and the ever increasing vocalism of what I call “House Muslims”.

Adam Deen